Successful mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in children with cancer using plerixafor (Mozobil&amp;trade;) and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor

Avramova, Boryana; Yordanova, Maya; Konstantinov, Dobrin N; Bobev, D

doi:10.2147/dddt.s19157

Cited by 14 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patients in the present study were younger (25-58 months of age) than those in previous studies for children [11][12][13][14][15][16]. CXCR4 is normally expressed in several neuronal populations and SDF-1 modulates the activity of neurons by multiple regulatory pathways; plerixafor may therefore cause neuronal dysregulation [17,18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Plerixafor (AMD3100) inhibits the binding of chemokine stromal cell derived factor (SDF-1) in bone marrow (BM) to its receptor (CXCR-4) in hematopoietic cells, thereby releasing hematopoietic stem cells from the BM into the peripheral blood (PB) [3,4]. Although many studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of plerixafor in adults [5][6][7][8][9], only case series or single case reports are available in children [10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. We therefore performed this study to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of plerixafor in children.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Efficacy and toxicity of plerixafor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in children with high‐risk neuroblastoma

Son

Kang

Kim

et al. 2013

Pediatric Blood & Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Six patients with high-risk neuroblastoma underwent the second stem cell collection round with G-CSF (5 μg/kg/day) + plerixafor (0.24 mg/kg/day) because the amount of CD34(+) cells collected during the first collection round with G-CSF alone was insufficient. The number of CD34(+) cells collected in the second collection round was higher in four patients and lower in two patients than in the first collection round. Four of the six patients experienced nightmares, nyctophobia, and visual hallucinations with G-CSF + plerixafor, which were not observed with G-CSF alone. Our findings suggest that plerixafor needs to be used with caution in children.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and toxicity of plerixafor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in children with high‐risk neuroblastoma

Son

Kang

Kim

et al. 2013

Pediatric Blood & Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, there is no evidence from studies in adult lymphoma or MM patients that potential differences in apheresis product affects platelet engraftment [15,16]. The results of the previous pediatric published literature, in which high levels of successful mobilization were observed in patients that had previously failed to mobilize on alternative mobilization regimes, provide further support for the use of plerixafor in HSC mobilization [9][10][11][12][13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plerixafor combined with standard regimens for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in pediatric patients with solid tumors eligible for autologous transplants: two-arm phase I/II study (MOZAIC)

Morland¹,

Kepák

Dallorso

et al. 2020

Bone Marrow Transplant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study (NCT01288573) investigated plerixafor's safety and efficacy in children with cancer. Stage 1 investigated the dosage, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety of plerixafor + standard mobilization (G-CSF ± chemotherapy). The stage 2 primary endpoint was successful mobilization (doubling of peripheral blood CD34+ cell count in the 24 h prior to first apheresis) in patients treated with plerixafor + standard mobilization vs. standard mobilization alone. In stage 1, three patients per age group (2-<6, 6-<12, and 12-<18 years) were treated at each dose level (160, 240, and 320 µg/kg). Based on PK and PD data, the dose proposed for stage 2 was 240 µg/kg (patients 1-<18 years), in which 45 patients were enrolled (30 plerixafor arm, 15 standard arm). Patient demographics and characteristics were well balanced across treatment arms. More patients in the plerixafor arm (24/30, 80%) met the primary endpoint of successful mobilization than in the standard arm (4/14, 28.6%, p = 0.0019). Adverse events reported as related to study treatment were mild, and no new safety concerns were identified. Plerixafor + standard G-CSF ± chemotherapy mobilization was generally well tolerated and efficacious when used to mobilize CD34+ cells in pediatric cancer patients.

show abstract

“…According to the data published by Pusic et al, which identified a minimum of 20/μL peripheral blood as the requirement for a successful first apheresis, we classified patients reaching a peak concentration of less than 20 CD34+ cells/μL peripheral blood upon stimulation with G‐CSF as poor mobilizers. In one poorly mobilizing patient, we administered plerixafor, the efficiency of which was recently demonstrated in pediatric patients . In all patients considered poor mobilizers, we performed apheresis at the day of the expected mobilization peak and scheduled a second apheresis session for the following day if the yield of this first apheresis did not reach 2 × 10 6 CD34+ PBSCs/kg BW.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In one poorly mobilizing patient, we administered plerixafor, 24 the efficiency of which was recently demonstrated in pediatric patients. 25 In all patients considered poor mobilizers, we performed apheresis at the day of the expected mobilization peak and scheduled a second apheresis session for the following day if the yield of this first apheresis did not reach 2 × 10 6 CD34+ PBSCs/kg BW. All apheresis sessions were performed with the same leukapheresis device (Spectra Optia MNC, Version 3.0, Terumo BCT) [26][27][28][29][30] under the pharmaceutical responsibility of and in collaboration with the Department for Cellular Therapeutics of the German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg-Hesse (Frankfurt, Hesse).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobilized peripheral blood stem cell apheresis via Hickman catheter in pediatric patients

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Autologous stem cell transplantation remains an integral treatment tool for certain childhood malignancies. In children, a central venous catheter is typically necessary to provide adequate flow rates for preparative apheresis. In this study, the feasibility and efficiency of collecting CD34+ cells via an indwelling Hickman catheter, preimplanted for chemotherapy, instead of placing an additional temporary central venous catheter was evaluated. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Forty‐eight pediatric leukaphereses for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation using Spectra Optia MNC, Version 3.0 were reviewed. We compared preimplanted Hickman catheters with a temporary Shaldon catheter, inserted for apheresis. Apheresis was considered successful if a dose of 2 × 106 CD34+ peripheral blood stem cells/kg BW was achieved. RESULTS In 43 (89.6%) of the 48 patients, a Hickman catheter was used for leukapheresis. Only 5 patients (10.4%) received a temporary Shaldon catheter. In both groups, apheresis was performed without apparent adverse reactions. The dose of collected CD34+ peripheral blood stem cells was 12.7 × 106 (range, 2.3–70.7 × 106) cells/kg BW in the Hickman group and 16.2 × 106 (range, 3.8–48.4 × 106) cells/kg BW in the Shaldon group, showing no statistically significant difference (p = 0.58). In both groups, the primary endpoint of a minimal CD34+ cell concentration of 2 × 106 cells/kg BW was achieved at a maximum of two leukapheresis sessions. Apheresis efficacy was further confirmed by the collection efficiency of 40.2% in the Hickman group and 27.8% in the Shaldon group (p = 0.32). CONCLUSION These data indicate the reliable feasibility and efficacy of mobilized apheresis via an indwelling Hickman catheter. In light of this, the routine insertion of a dialysis catheter for the purpose of leukapheresis should be critically reconsidered.

show abstract

Successful mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in children with cancer using plerixafor (Mozobil™) and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor

Cited by 14 publications

References 7 publications

Efficacy and toxicity of plerixafor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in children with high‐risk neuroblastoma

Efficacy and toxicity of plerixafor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in children with high‐risk neuroblastoma

Plerixafor combined with standard regimens for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in pediatric patients with solid tumors eligible for autologous transplants: two-arm phase I/II study (MOZAIC)

Mobilized peripheral blood stem cell apheresis via Hickman catheter in pediatric patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About